Rick Santorum: Obama’s Refusal to Defend DOMA is an Affront to the Will of the People

February 24, 2011 By Caffeinated Thoughts

Washington, DC – Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) issued the following statement in response to President Obama’s announcement that his administration will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court:

“When the definition of marriage has been put before the people, they have time and time again – from Maine to California – stood up in defense of the traditional family. President Obama’s refusal to defend a law that was overwhelmingly supported on both sides of the aisle and signed into law by a president of his own party is an affront to the will of the people. This is yet another example of our president’s effort to erode the very traditions that have made our country the greatest nation on earth, and it begs the question what language changed in the constitution since 2008 to reverse his position,” Santorum stated.

Related

About Caffeinated Thoughts

Comments

The emansipation proclamation, Loving Vs. Virginia, military integration, school integration, voting rights for women…all were against the will of the people. You can’t put individual rights and civil rights up for a popular vote. What if the majority wanted to outlaw left handedness or red hair, or someone having 19 kids if they so choose? They wouldn’t be allowed to tell people how to live their lives, or descriminate against them for any of their characteristics. Being a gay relationship is NOT ILLEGAL. Thus gays should be able to legally cement that relationship in any way they see fit.

“You can’t put individual rights and civil rights up for a popular vote”

Of course you can. Since the Constitution does not even mention people of homosexual behavior, it is ultimately put to a popular vote. Yes, as detesting it may seem, the vote of the majority rules in the USA. If a President has an unpopular opinion he/she can risk going against the vote of the people in the next election.

The idea about respecting the vote of the majority, is that all Senate and Representatives are elected. Even US Supreme Court Judges are appointed by Presidents, who are in themselves elected. It is also assumed that the majority knows best, as in the case of how slavery was abolished – by majority decision, and reason for defining that legal minority. Certainly the vote of the minority doesn’t cut it.

The rights of everyone, even if they are a minority, cut it! The majority elects their leaders, but the bill of rights and constitution dictates the laws and rights of individuals. The equal protection amendment covers rights and protections that are not itemized in the constitution. It covers things like Jim Crow laws, women’s equality and rights, the rights to marriage benefits. If you give rights to one legal union, under equal protection you have to give the rights to another legal union. (The key is LEGAL union) The Federal court system, who, by the way are not elected by the majority, is called to interpret the constitution and the laws to make sure they are respecting equally the rights of individuals. The majority doesn’t get to vote and rule on the characteristics and legal rights of the individual! If the majority wanted to outlaw red hair, or left handedness or some other characteristic that was equally as rare as homosexuality, they couldn’t legally do that. It doesn’t matter what the majority says if it infringes on personal choices that are perfectly legal, or civil rights that cover all of us..

You’ve said it:
“The majority elects their leaders, but the bill of rights and constitution dictates the laws and rights of individuals.” I believe that is how it is written, but there’s more constitutional ammendments than the Bill of Rights. Where do you find marriage in any of them? How about Civil Unions?

Obviously this is your feeling about it all, but it has to stand on legal ground. For instance, you talk about a Legal union, and i am talking about a legal union – but we don’t mean the same by the same words. How can a union become legal, is the question. Don’t bring in your presuppositions. Also, is the union legal nationally or just in one State? You don’t distinguish or specify. Why don’t you specify?

And then you bring in Jim Crow laws….. well, i bring in DOMA – that’s a law too. Rights that are not spelled out in the Constitution or Ammendments can be changed. Even the Ammendments can be changed. Yes, in principle, red hair and left handedness can be outlawed because it is protected by an Ammendment, and Ammendments can be changed by Congress. In practice, it wouldn’t be expected, because they are trivial. States and the Feds, via their Congress outlaw or outlawed all kinds of human characteristics – for instance sodomy, even adultery.

Homosexuality is rare? How do we know? by a “raise of hands” ? That’s naive. It is a behavior. You make a lot of assumptions and think that !! makes a difference.

” The Federal court system, who, by the way are not elected by the majority”

That’s what i wrote, but elected officials nominate or elect some judges to positions. No way to get around it, the vote of the majority ultimately decides the rights that are not in the Constitution itself. It’s very difficult to make yet another ammendment of the Constitution, but it is not impossible. One ammendment might be to make something like DOMA into a constitutional ammendment. Needs 38 States. It’s a maybe.

How could Congress come up with DOMA? (Defense of Marriage Act). Don’t they know the Bill of Rights, other ammendments, and the constitution? Don’t they have legal advisers? Are you going to teach them what is in the Bill of Rights, 14th ammendment, etc? The answer is they made DOMA a law, because
they could. You argue “they can’t” – well, they did.